How do I get the film/cinematic look with a digital camera?

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Funny, I was about to mention Star Wars, before I saw Joshua's comment.

Speaking of "no film prints," I just saw a film print of same, shot on film. Incredible for a country with digital projection B)

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Tyler: You want to play film purist along with Simon, you're welcome to it.



So, keeping in mind I much prefer 35mm to 2K, and sometimes 4K, what is better: A digital movie projected on film, or a film-shot TV show shown in 4K? I know which one I'd prefer, all other factors aside. . .

[Ari Michael Leeds]

And, eerie timing, right after I mentioned this, I saw this article in my IMDBPro feed: http://www.variety.com/2016/film/news/jason-bourne-universal-4k-ultra-hd-releases-120756140/


4K UHD of Star Trek, or a 4th generation, scratched up, 2K master, oh, say a DI like "The Aviator?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Ari Michael Leeds

[Carl Looper]

Properly speaking a digital image is also "analog" in the sense that the digital image is analogous to the image otherwise encoded by the sensor.

 

If we use the term "analog film" to specifically mean photo-chemical film, it is no worse than using the term "film" when otherwise referencing a digital account of such.

 

The point of these terms is not to suggest one is better than the other (although often the terms may very well be used in just such an argument), but to distinguish one from the other - to reference that visible difference between a photo-chemical image and a digital one. How we might come to understand that difference on a technical level depends only on the extent to which we might need to understand it. It is otherwise optional.

 

What isn't really optional, or would be exceedingly painful for a cinematographer, is blindness.

 

C

[joshua gallegos]

But what is "film look", how do people even begin to define it? The format doesn't define the film itself, if Tyler Perry shot a new Madea movie on 35mm as opposed to filming it on the Alexa, would that make it anymore interesting? Doesn't mean a thing.

[Carl Looper]

But what is "film look", how do people even begin to define it? The format doesn't define the film itself, if Tyler Perry shot a new Madea movie on 35mm as opposed to filming it on the Alexa, would that make it anymore interesting? Doesn't mean a thing.

 

Yes, I agree. It wouldn't make any difference if Da Vinci had painted the Mona Lisa in house paints, crayons, or water colours, for it would still be a work of art by Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

But it would not be that work we call the Mona Lisa.

 

And that's an important qualification. Well, at least if one wants to talk about the art and craft of these things.

 

It's not necessary to define these things in advance. One can still appreciate the difference between film and digital without any definitions. Just use your eyes and have a look at some films on a film projector next to some digital works on a digital projector/screen.

 

Defining this difference - or rather: accounting for (or theorising, talking about, writing about) this difference, is a little more involved.

 

C

Edited April 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

An image (photo-chemical, digital, a painting, etc) is not to be confused with what it represents.

 

What an image represents is social, (cultural, political etc.) and is determined by a complex set of competing factors. But the image itself is an altogether different thing. One might even say, in desperation, that it is a spiritual thing.

 

Part of the art of it all is coming to terms with this spiritual or ghost like aspect of an image. This apparition, which occupies our sensory field, and determines our appreciation long before it otherwise takes on the role of representing anything.

 

Early in the Revenant there is a beautiful tracking shot over water, with trees sticking out of such, and no people to be seen. It is a meditative shot in which one has the opportunity to soak up all of it's fascinating details. In particular the ripples in the water, criss-crossing each other. What does this shot represent? It doesn't matter. We're appreciating the sheer beauty of the environment regardless of what the image represents.

 

A particularly fascinating aspect of this shot is when the people eventually enter from the sides. There is a strange adjustment of scale that takes place. The environment suddenly looks smaller than we might have imagined.

 

C

[Tyler Purcell]

So, keeping in mind I much prefer 35mm to 2K, and sometimes 4K, what is better: A digital movie projected on film, or a film-shot TV show shown in 4K? I know which one I'd prefer, all other factors aside. . .

Again, distribution format is the key. If all you're going to do is covert the film to digital, for digital projection, what's the point of shooting on film? Especially the modern cinema cameras, post workflows and presentation systems we have today.

 

See, I'm not a film snob or a film purist. I just don't like digital technology because; "technology" shouldn't control how I want my story to be seen on screen. We have no choice but to work digitally today because some suits who pull the strings of the entertainment industry, weren't making enough PROFIT off film, during a time when digital was just getting started. They all wanted new boats or air planes so instead of waiting, they pulled the plug on film and now we have no option.

 

4K UHD of Star Trek, or a 4th generation, scratched up, 2K master, oh, say a DI like "The Aviator?

You need to spend more time at Quentin's theater, watching old prints of photochemically finished movies.

 

Besides, digital doesn't even scrape the surface of a 70mm originated and projected film.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

So everything that has ever been shot or produced for T.V. is beneath you?



I'd be giddy as hell if I got to D.P. a project shot on 35mm distributed solely in 4K. 35mm prints would be better, sure.

[Tyler Purcell]

So everything that has ever been shot or produced for T.V. is beneath you?

I understand where you get this question from, but remember up until just a few short years ago, television broadcast and viewing systems, were far inferior to the equipment used to produce the content. Most long-form dramatic shows were shot on film and for good reason; because they knew technology wasn't good enough. Today our modern digital cinema cameras far exceed the current and near-future broadcast standards. So shooting for digital broadcast with digital cameras, is very smart. The audience watching an 25Mbps interlaced MPEG2 stream on their 42" LCD display, sitting 6 - 10 feet away, won't notice the difference between 16mm and 70, let alone digital vs film.

 

I'd be giddy as hell if I got to D.P. a project shot on 35mm distributed solely in 4K. 35mm prints would be better, sure.

If I didn't have the money to do a photochemical finish and strike a few festival prints, I wouldn't bother shooting on 35mm, in my eyes there is no purpose. Now 16mm is a different story and honestly, the workflow I have in mind for a feature I'm trying to make is S16mm acquisition, digital edit and cut/conform negative. This way if there is any money left over, I can do an optical blow up to 35mm and strike a few prints for festivals.

[Landon D. Parks]

You can make digital emulate the look of film, but it will never be film unless shot, finished and projected on film.

 

You can use that argument for anything in life. The reality is, the number of films that are shot, finished AND projected on film are, well, not very many. Even when big budget movies shot on film, almost guaranteed they are scanning that negative into a DI for their effects and finishing. Given that pretty much all major screens in America are now digital, releasing a film print is pretty pointless for anything other than a very limited release movie.

 

We can debate the visual appeal of film all day - but that won't change the fact that film will continue to become a boutique items reserved for those few who refuse to make the switch, and for those wanting a particular style. Film projection will NEVER make a comeback, at least in my opinion.

 

So basically, we need to retire the term 'filmmaker', since one cannot use that title unless they follow a full film workflow.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

90% grading? What about locations, casting, production design, lighting, blocking, composition, wardrobe, hair and makeup, special effects, visual effects, editing, sound design, scoring, and marketing? It's the accumulated talent of all the departments that creates 'the film look.' Which is why it is so difficult to do well, even for projects with big budgets. It's just not that easy to pull off.

 

Well, I was referring more to the 'visual aesthetic' many associate with the 'film look' - aka: the color tones, highlights, overall visual 'look' so to speak. Of course, putting the whole thing together into what one associates with a polished film requires much more than anything format related.

[Simon Wyss]

In 2015 we had 563 digital screens out of 570 in Switzerland, official statistics.

 

35 has lost its historic place. We all know about that.

16 is still feasible from script to screen. Projectors are portable and numerous.

8mm is still feasible, even with professional color negative stocks today thanks to Dennis Toeppen. http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26836

 

I am a purist, yes.

[Robin R Probyn]

There is very little being shot interlaced these days even for the lowest rank of broadcast program,or corporate shoot for mainly web viewing .. only sports and news really.. and programs that need a "live" look.. famously one of the MTV awards was shot progressive for a "film" look.. and there were thousands of complaints from viewers .. saying it didnt look live and basically hating the look of it.. its all audience association of what "looks" like video.. or what looks like movies,music shoots,commercials .. seen in cinema,s or streamed off the inter web .. progressive 24/25, non burning out clouds, a decent grade..a dolly move here and there.. and SDF .. boom.. 99% of the world will call that film like .. i.e. doesnt look like sports,news,MTV awards or day time chat shows..

 

Apart from 5 guys on this forum.. no one cares.. . if Roger Deakins shoots in 70mm and the film is crap.. or Robert Richardson :) its still crap even with over priced stale popcorn and a noisy projector.. if it looks good and serves the story it matters not film or digital.. all this nashing of teeth would be better spent worrying about decent scripts and the emergence of 10 part sequel /pre sequel who knows what .. lets sell lots of toys ..tent poles movies..

 

When the few big name directors who can insist on film , have retired to their ranches and county estates.. its a 100% certainty that film will die out.. everyone knew that good editing could only be done on a Steenbeck.. it was hands on..you could wear white cloves.. it had a life and purpose... it made a lovely noise..it was.... ORGANIC.. yes it truly was.. and where are they now.. there are no true edits anymore..as we all worried about dolphins.. the Steenbeck slipped under the waves.. with nary a tear from the film world..

Edited April 20, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[joshua gallegos]

 

Yes, I agree. It wouldn't make any difference if Da Vinci had painted the Mona Lisa in house paints, crayons, or water colours, for it would still be a work of art by Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

But it would not be that work we call the Mona Lisa.

 

And that's an important qualification. Well, at least if one wants to talk about the art and craft of these things.

 

It's not necessary to define these things in advance. One can still appreciate the difference between film and digital without any definitions. Just use your eyes and have a look at some films on a film projector next to some digital works on a digital projector/screen.

 

Defining this difference - or rather: accounting for (or theorising, talking about, writing about) this difference, is a little more involved.

 

C

 

Incredible work has been done on digital format, that's complete nonsense! Digital is merely an iteration of film, it's two sides of the same coin, when people diminish the works that have been done in digital or deem it an inferior art, it makes them ignorant of the fact that the art comes from the heart of man and not the canvas in which it is presented.

[Gabe Agoado]

I partially expected this thread to turn into a war of "digital vs. film", my fault for titling it what I did. I think what's missing in the argument is the perspective of a student, like me. As a kid I grew up using video cameras. My dad had his big shoulder-mount VHS camera he would use for shooting our talent shows and us doing stuff around the house. When we started to travel my dad would bring the handy-cam mini-DV camera and let us use it occasionally if we saw something we wanted to shoot. I shot my first attempts at movie-making on this same camera, edited them in windows movie-maker.

 

To some of you, shooting VHS and Mini-DV is far from "digital". Digital is defined as this thing that is cold and sterile, and for some reason, having a physical tape in your hand makes the experience warmer. I used to rent VHS videos with my dad from our local Blockbuster all the time, but when DVD's became a thing, we switched to DVD. When I was 10 years old, I had know idea what the difference between "analog" or "digital" was, but I miss VHS because I associate VHS with the memory of spending time with my dad, but not because it's VHS.

 

Fast forward to my first year of college. I went from no experience with film to shooting with film in every class. Despite the fact that we would eventually get the film digitized, I still noticed a distinct difference between what was shot on film and what was shot on digital.

I still shoot on film now even though this is still a completely new thing to me, because I grew up watching old science fiction, fantasy and action movies and serials with my dad. I get it digitized because it means I don't have to walk around with an 8mm projector everywhere just to show people what I have done. But I also understand that the number of people hiring directors, DP's or camera operators for shooting professional projects on film is low compared to the number of people hiring for digital projects.

 

To those who say there is no "film look" after the film is digitized, that is bullshit. I can walk into any movie in any theater with a digital projector and immediately be able to tell what is what. I don't think that makes one format superior to the other, it's just based on what the **(obscenity removed)** you want your movie to look like.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Gabe Agoado

[David Mullen ASC]

Since film can have many looks, sometimes it is simpler to just think of it in terms of what aspects of your digital camera's image do you want to minimize. For example, digital cameras with small sensors have a lot of depth of field. Film can have a lot of depth of field too, especially if using smaller formats, but the majority of contemporary features are shot on 35mm sized sensors (or 35mm film) at wider apertures.

[Tyler Purcell]

Incredible work has been done on digital format, that's complete nonsense! Digital is merely an iteration of film, it's two sides of the same coin, when people diminish the works that have been done in digital or deem it an inferior art, it makes them ignorant of the fact that the art comes from the heart of man and not the canvas in which it is presented.

The only similarity digital has to film is the fact it generates a moving image. Digital has much more in common with television then it does with film. Yes, digital cinema cameras try to emulate film cameras by having similar controls, but how they function has zero commonality.

[Tyler Purcell]

I get it digitized because it means I don't have to walk around with an 8mm projector everywhere just to show people what I have done.

Well if you work with Super 8 I can't comment, it's a whole other can of worms.

 

My earlier comment was about making a professional product that would be printed for theatrical projection, originated on S16 or 35mm. Digital presentation systems have zero flicker. So each frame stays longer on screen then with a film projector. So what you see is not the same. Obviously, everyone telecine's their films to show people because they have no choice.

 

But I also understand that the number of people hiring directors, DP's or camera operators for shooting professional projects on film is low compared to the number of people hiring for digital projects.

Well, it's a dead market. Most of the people who shoot film today are directors and DP's themselves, who have their own equipment and shoot their own productions. The days of being a DP for hire that shoots on film... that's a super rare occasion.

 

To those who say there is no "film look" after the film is digitized, that is bullshit. I can walk into any movie in any theater with a digital projector and immediately be able to tell what is what. I don't think that makes one format superior to the other, it's just based on what the **(obscenity removed)** you want your movie to look like.

Right, but in a digital cinema the difference is only in "look", which can be faked. If you did an A/B comparison between a photochemically made film print and a digital presentation, the difference is night and day, its MUCH MORE then a baked-in look.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Robin: You can make a point without being a dick about it. Glad you place the value of the technology over the operator. All I can say is that's a certain type of thinking that doesn't coincide with reality.

It's the tools not the operators. And you shouldn't be so quick to count "a few individuals" who will die and then the medium will die out. : )

[Robin R Probyn]

Robin: You can make a point without being a dick about it. Glad you place the value of the technology over the operator. All I can say is that's a certain type of thinking that doesn't coincide with reality.

 

It's the tools not the operators. And you shouldn't be so quick to count "a few individuals" who will die and then the medium will die out. : )

 

eh..that was witty British irony sir.. I just read a post from you advising someone else to lighten up.. :)

 

I would strongly say its the operators not the tools.. Roger Deakins digital photography as a good example..

Edited April 21, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Robin R Probyn]

actually how was being a "dick" anyway.. I don't see anything offensive in that post.. I wonder if have mis interpreted something ? again..

Edited April 21, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Carl Looper]

 

Incredible work has been done on digital format, that's complete nonsense! Digital is merely an iteration of film, it's two sides of the same coin, when people diminish the works that have been done in digital or deem it an inferior art, it makes them ignorant of the fact that the art comes from the heart of man and not the canvas in which it is presented.

 

What exactly is complete nonsense? I've never said one couldn't do great work on digital.

 

Da Vinci did many important works in pencil on paper, and I would argue, till the cows come home, that they are no less great works of art than those he did in oil.

 

And likewise we can say a great work can be done in digital as much as in film. Or in film as much as digital.

 

The point I'm making (as distinct from others) is not that one is better than the other - but that each is visibly different from the other. And one of the first requirements of an artist (I'd argue) is that their eyes are able to make such a distinction - exceptions being where forces might conspire to fool your eyes (and brain).

 

For example, one of the virtues of working with pencil and paper is the ability to work very quickly and to therefore obtain something that exploits whatever that allows. It may be the ability to capture something that might be lost if one was otherwise required to take more time. But conversely, some things require more time. No matter how good you are with a pencil, the colour you can otherwise get in an oil painting is not possible with a pencil.

 

Would we argue that B&W film is better than Colour? If wanting to get a B&W result then B&W is better. But if wanting to get colour out of B&W you'd have a problem. Interestingly enough, you can get colour out of B&W film, but you won't know how to do that if you don't understand the materials with which you work (including light and the nature of colour that such an understanding provides). Of course, one can always collaborate with someone who does.

 

All of these things are analogies of course - but I think they are useful ones. Understanding the nature of the materials you work with, and their peculiarities, allows you to do something that works with such materials. As distinct from something that doesn't. Perhaps it's more just the craft of it than the art of it, but whatever you call it, it's a thing.

 

C

Edited April 21, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Speaking of drawings, here is one of mine.

[Robin R Probyn]

is this a windup.. or just bolex :)